Re: [76attendees] A Net Neutrality comment

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 09 November 2009 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: 76attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 76attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739173A6A27 for <76attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:24:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HXmJJGHnKeQ for <76attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DFA3A690D for <76attendees@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from OMTA17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.89]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 2nVR1d0041vXlb856oPbT8; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:23:35 +0000
Received: from [133.93.24.69] ([133.93.24.69]) by OMTA17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 2oZ71d0061VSmrp3doZBD7; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:33:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4AF7614F.60609@tony.li>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:24:47 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
References: <94C0E9F1-94A4-4C04-A236-37909CF10CBE@cisco.com> <88ac5c710911081621j59316bbfi16567c241f51a7b2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <88ac5c710911081621j59316bbfi16567c241f51a7b2@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 76attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [76attendees] A Net Neutrality comment
X-BeenThere: 76attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <76attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees>, <mailto:76attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/76attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:76attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:76attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees>, <mailto:76attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:24:37 -0000

Richard,

I believe that that distinction is the difference between a libertarian 
viewpoint and a _militant_ libertarian viewpoint, as Fred mentioned.  ;-)

Tony


Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hey Fred,
> 
> Thanks for this little study.  Note that this doesn't necessarily
> argue for *application* throttling, as much as for *user* throttling.
> The network might want to prevent the bittorrent user from interfering
> with you, but the he can be left free to shut down his own VPN if he
> wants to.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>> A remark to those who take a militant libertarian view of Net Neutrality,
>> and those of ledbat and tcpm who have difficulty understanding why
>> transports should tune to the knee (just enough of data outstanding, aka
>> cwnd, to maintain the maximum goodput) as opposed to the cliff (the knee
>> plus the maximum depth of the bottleneck queue, at which point throughput
>> has not increased but loss has increased).
>>
>> Saturday night, as I do many nights that I spend at hotels, I ran a ping
>> study to characterize the network. It was obviously massively
>> overprovisioned - it was difficult to register RTT variance in excess of a
>> millisecond trans-pacific between Japan and the US. I did this again last
>> night. The network behavior as measured from my room was equally stable
>> until about 11:58 PM; at that point, someone fired up something huge, my
>> guess being something that uses bittorrent, delay dramatically increased,
>> and my VPN went down within a couple of minutes. When this happens,
>> customers call ISPs and ISPs start throttling applications, because the
>> applications are doing horrible things to the ISPs' customers.
>>
>> The attached are a case in point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 76attendees mailing list
>> 76attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 76attendees mailing list
> 76attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/76attendees
>